Watch that YT Video, it's an Onion video, so it's satirical, but it was an eye opener to me for some reason or another. I always was sort of cold and uncaring about the enemy population during wartime and only concerned for American lives, I still value American lives over others, but I agree that we should consider the lives we are taking in other countries as a major factor during wartime. I agree we should use drones if we can perfect them to cause far less collateral damage.

Watch that YT Video, it's an Onion video, so it's satirical, but it was an eye opener to me for some reason or another. I always was sort of cold and uncaring about the enemy population during wartime and only concerned for American lives, I still value American lives over others, but I agree that we should consider the lives we are taking in other countries as a major factor during wartime. I agree we should use drones if we can perfect them to cause far less collateral damage.

I agree. But the practical concern is that there is no system that can help one measure the value of human life. For example, you cannot adopt numerical system because life is not represented in the form of numbers.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

I don't have any sympathy for Pakistan, but the drone strikes are really a black spot in US foreign policy.

It's not really sympathy for Pakistan, it's sympathy for the civilians caught in the crossfire. The Pakistan government is getting paid to let the US drone its people. and the people of Pakistan aren't too happy about it.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

I don't have any sympathy for Pakistan, but the drone strikes are really a black spot in US foreign policy.

It's not really sympathy for Pakistan, it's sympathy for the civilians caught in the crossfire. The Pakistan government is getting paid to let the US drone its people. and the people of Pakistan aren't too happy about it.

Yeah, I get that, but they don't really have a choice, in the conventional sense of the word. Pakistan is unable to counter terrorism on its land ( unwilling?), and it cannot show its commitment to the war against terror. Drone strikes are the only way it disguises itself as the victim.

America has no right to kill the civilians on Pakistani land, even if it pays Pakistani government for every drone. Even if Pakistan allows it, the strikes are 'unethical', if the word still has any sense in the global politics.

We used to carpet bomb entire countries, better technology is reducing collateral damage over time. I think it really comes down to how pi$$ed off we are, after Pearl Harbor we did Nagasaki and Hiroshima without blinking, we were not all that worried about the collateral damage on those two targets.

I'm not so sure getting better at killing people is something to be proud of or anything like that, but we are getting a lot better at it.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 2/15/2013 7:42:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Is there any evidence that a drone strike is any more dangerous to civilians per targeted human than an infantry assault?

Ethics has never really been your forte`, has it :)

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

At 2/15/2013 7:42:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Is there any evidence that a drone strike is any more dangerous to civilians per targeted human than an infantry assault?

Ethics has never really been your forte`, has it :)

Ethics is the code that governs goal-oriented action.

Unless your code of ethics prohibits infantry assaults on those who aggress against you or your allies, their accomplices, that sort of thing, I can see no reason it might prohibit drone strikes without such evidence.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Watch that YT Video, it's an Onion video, so it's satirical, but it was an eye opener to me for some reason or another. I always was sort of cold and uncaring about the enemy population during wartime and only concerned for American lives, I still value American lives over others, but I agree that we should consider the lives we are taking in other countries as a major factor during wartime. I agree we should use drones if we can perfect them to cause far less collateral damage.

Drones are terror weapons. They lose purpose without collateral damage.

At 2/15/2013 7:42:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Is there any evidence that a drone strike is any more dangerous to civilians per targeted human than an infantry assault?

Do you think that it should be legal for US to target al queda linked US citizens through the use of drone strikes?

Within our borders, no unless they are in open rebellion and a judge is prepared to rule they have clearly made a fortress that makes arrest and therefore a trial unlikely. (same for non-citizens).

Otherwise, yes, under the same circumstances that a non-citizen might be targeted. (a judge rules that they are reasonably considered an enemy, i.e. aggress against the United States or serve as knowing accomplice to those who do, living under a government which shelters them from capture and therefore due process).

Drones are terror weapons. They lose purpose without collateral damage.

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever, as opposed to the purpose of drones being to make precision strikes without casualty to the offensive party?

One of the rationales behind drone adoption is that given the lack of need for the pilot to defend themselves, friendly fire incidents and other mistakes (including hitting civilians who might be perceived to be terrorists by some pilot who's been running a 48 hour mission on amphetamines) are a lot less likely simply because discretion over when to strike is less necessary.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 2/15/2013 7:42:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Is there any evidence that a drone strike is any more dangerous to civilians per targeted human than an infantry assault?

Do you think that it should be legal for US to target al queda linked US citizens through the use of drone strikes?

Within our borders, no unless they are in open rebellion and a judge is prepared to rule they have clearly made a fortress that makes arrest and therefore a trial unlikely. (same for non-citizens).

Otherwise, yes, under the same circumstances that a non-citizen might be targeted. (a judge rules that they are reasonably considered an enemy, i.e. aggress against the United States or serve as knowing accomplice to those who do, living under a government which shelters them from capture and therefore due process).

Drones are terror weapons. They lose purpose without collateral damage.

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever, as opposed to the purpose of drones being to make precision strikes without casualty to the offensive party?

One of the rationales behind drone adoption is that given the lack of need for the pilot to defend themselves, friendly fire incidents and other mistakes (including hitting civilians who might be perceived to be terrorists by some pilot who's been running a 48 hour mission on amphetamines) are a lot less likely simply because discretion over when to strike is less necessary.

US Law now states that ANYONE caught in the blast of a drone attack (except, they're still classified, and so they don't exist) is a terrorist...ANYONE.

Newborn? Terrorist

Grandma? Terrorist

We call everyone hit by this "precision strike" (they pack quite a wallop) a terrorist so that we can say that the strikes are still precision strikes.

I don't condone 9/11, but I understand it. If someone wer doing to this country what we do to the middle east and someone old me flying a plane into one of those massive towers in Dubai would stop them, I'd get my pilot's license immediately.

What's funny is that while the US is obviously in support using drones against other countries, just wait a decade or two. When China or India or X decides to fly drones over North America, or if God forbid they drop a missile or two anywhere near the US, then the US will begin to claim that drones are "unfair" or "immoral" or whatehaveyou.

At 2/16/2013 3:43:36 PM, malcolmxy wrote:US Law now states that ANYONE caught in the blast of a drone attack (except, they're still classified, and so they don't exist) is a terrorist...ANYONE.

Umm, what? Cite the passage.

Newborn? Terrorist

Grandma? Terrorist

We call everyone hit by this "precision strike" (they pack quite a wallop) a terrorist so that we can say that the strikes are still precision strikes.

They're called "precision strikes" because they (are supposed to anyway) tend overwhelmingly to hit the building containing the targeted terrorist and not nearby buildings, so that, assuming the intel is good, all you have to do to avoid dying to a drone is not shelter a terrorist/ be sheltered by one.

For every target, we take out ~10 civilians

That sounds like... an Arab household, who knew?

Also, reported by whom on what basis? Mr Jpeg?

What do you call a bomb that goes off randomly and primarily kills civilians? I call it a terrorist act.

I call it a fantasy. Drones do not "go off randomly." They go off where you point them.

I don't condone 9/11, but I understand it. If someone wer doing to this country what we do to the middle east and someone old me flying a plane into one of those massive towers in Dubai would stop them, I'd get my pilot's license immediately.

Which countries were we sending drones to pre- 9/11?

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

What's funny is that while the US is obviously in support using drones against other countries, just wait a decade or two. When China or India or X decides to fly drones over North America, or if God forbid they drop a missile or two anywhere near the US, then the US will begin to claim that drones are "unfair" or "immoral" or whatehaveyou.

The United States is not a prototypical voice for "clean warfare." We usually have reservations from all the Geneva and other crap we sign, after trying to weaken it.

The exception is usually stuff that gets used against Israel, and even then the argument is usually blatantly "Iran is insane and can't be trusted" not "that's an inherently immoral technology" (Since, after all, Israel manufactures or buys it immediately so that would be silly).

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

We call everyone hit by this "precision strike" (they pack quite a wallop) a terrorist so that we can say that the strikes are still precision strikes.

They're called "precision strikes" because they (are supposed to anyway) tend overwhelmingly to hit the building containing the targeted terrorist and not nearby buildings, so that, assuming the intel is good, all you have to do to avoid dying to a drone is not shelter a terrorist/ be sheltered by one.

What do you call a bomb that goes off randomly and primarily kills civilians? I call it a terrorist act.

I call it a fantasy. Drones do not "go off randomly." They go off where you point them.

So do pipe bombs (where you place them).

I don't condone 9/11, but I understand it. If someone wer doing to this country what we do to the middle east and someone old me flying a plane into one of those massive towers in Dubai would stop them, I'd get my pilot's license immediately.

Which countries were we sending drones to pre- 9/11?

I don't know. Which countries were responsible for 9/11? Far as I can tell, it was a Saudi operation against the US, and we ain't sent a single one there.

I thought we got the guy responsible for 9/11, anyway.

9/11 killed 3500 people, and we'll say another 1500 in the aftermath. That's 5000. We've sent more American soldiers off to die in these wars than that.

Plus, we've killed 1.4 million "of them"...in retaliation for 5000...I think we got our pound of flesh already. How many innocent people have to die to satisfy your blood lust? Should we get to an even 6million just so the Nazis don't make us look inferior?

I don't condone 9/11, but I understand it. If someone wer doing to this country what we do to the middle east and someone old me flying a plane into one of those massive towers in Dubai would stop them, I'd get my pilot's license immediately.

Which countries were we sending drones to pre- 9/11?

I don't know. Which countries were responsible for 9/11? Far as I can tell, it was a Saudi operation against the US, and we ain't sent a single one there.

Which makes the above statement about the supposed motives for 9/11 kinda silly.

I thought we got the guy responsible for 9/11, anyway.

You make it sound like it was some dude in his basement building robots to take over planes.

9/11 killed 3500 people, and we'll say another 1500 in the aftermath. That's 5000. We've sent more American soldiers off to die in these wars than that.

I don't condone 9/11, but I understand it. If someone wer doing to this country what we do to the middle east and someone old me flying a plane into one of those massive towers in Dubai would stop them, I'd get my pilot's license immediately.

Which countries were we sending drones to pre- 9/11?

I don't know. Which countries were responsible for 9/11? Far as I can tell, it was a Saudi operation against the US, and we ain't sent a single one there.

Which makes the above statement about the supposed motives for 9/11 kinda silly.

How so? The Saudi people hate us more than anyone because our might keeps their illegal monarchy in power.

Do you know anything about this region other than, "they're bad"?

I thought we got the guy responsible for 9/11, anyway.

You make it sound like it was some dude in his basement building robots to take over planes.

1 leader, a couple lieutenants, and a few soldiers. Other than that, when we're nt funding and arming them, as we are in Syria, al Qaeda are a bunch of hapless bumblef*cks who have a better chance of bruising their egos in an attack than damaging anything.

9/11 killed 3500 people, and we'll say another 1500 in the aftermath. That's 5000. We've sent more American soldiers off to die in these wars than that.

What's that have to do with anything?

We got 'em back...we hit them much harder than they hit us. It's cruel.

At 2/15/2013 7:42:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Is there any evidence that a drone strike is any more dangerous to civilians per targeted human than an infantry assault?

Do you think that it should be legal for US to target al queda linked US citizens through the use of drone strikes?

Within our borders, no unless they are in open rebellion and a judge is prepared to rule they have clearly made a fortress that makes arrest and therefore a trial unlikely. (same for non-citizens).

Otherwise, yes, under the same circumstances that a non-citizen might be targeted. (a judge rules that they are reasonably considered an enemy, i.e. aggress against the United States or serve as knowing accomplice to those who do, living under a government which shelters them from capture and therefore due process).

Oh, so you support drone strikes in America by the government. That's... well, unexpected.

Watch that YT Video, it's an Onion video, so it's satirical, but it was an eye opener to me for some reason or another. I always was sort of cold and uncaring about the enemy population during wartime and only concerned for American lives, I still value American lives over others, but I agree that we should consider the lives we are taking in other countries as a major factor during wartime. I agree we should use drones if we can perfect them to cause far less collateral damage.

The Fool: I can even listen after somebody 10 Predicate word. It sounds so fake.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: How are you guys sold so fast. Its like they robbed you mind with language. As much as it may have good intention, Its horrible, for people, because it will just give other the intention of Lying like that people for bad reasons.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 2/15/2013 7:42:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Is there any evidence that a drone strike is any more dangerous to civilians per targeted human than an infantry assault?

Do you think that it should be legal for US to target al queda linked US citizens through the use of drone strikes?

Within our borders, no unless they are in open rebellion and a judge is prepared to rule they have clearly made a fortress that makes arrest and therefore a trial unlikely. (same for non-citizens).

Otherwise, yes, under the same circumstances that a non-citizen might be targeted. (a judge rules that they are reasonably considered an enemy, i.e. aggress against the United States or serve as knowing accomplice to those who do, living under a government which shelters them from capture and therefore due process).

Oh, so you support drone strikes in America by the government. That's... well, unexpected.

That's some pretty srs context-droppin thar.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

You've never heard of "the legislative branch?" That's the branch with the authority to make laws. Executive orders can only be made in pursuit of laws.

So do pipe bombs (where you place them).

And?

and, do you consider pipe bombs terror weapons?

There's no such thing as an innate "terror weapon," only a terror act. You can commit terrorism with a handgun if you want. You can also go for infrastructural rather than psychological impact with pipe bombs.

How so? The Saudi people hate us more than anyone because our might keeps their illegal monarchy in power.

Illegal? What laws? And isn't the terrorism-sponsoring done by princes? Wahhabism is the faith of the regime, not some grassroots thing, the monarchy and wahhabism have been intertwined for centuries.

9/11 killed 3500 people, and we'll say another 1500 in the aftermath. That's 5000. We've sent more American soldiers off to die in these wars than that.

What's that have to do with anything?

We got 'em back...we hit them much harder than they hit us. It's cruel.

This concept of "cruelty" has no value. Hitting harder than you are hit is called deterrence.

I think our military seriously lacks some creativity when it thinks that this is the best way to get rid of "terrorists" in Pakistan. I'm also kind of laughing at the fact that everyone believes what the government tells them about Pakistan.

The Pakistani government (namely, their intelligence service) is largely responsible for keeping the Taliban in business, so it's no surprise they have limited their incursions to the neo-Talibans driven by Pashtun nationalism and not jihadism.

If a male is within proximity of someone who has been designated a member of the Taliban or associated forces (including allied warlords and drug runners), then they are counted as "militant casualties" after a drone strike.

Drones are a weapon just like bayonets, machine guns, and atom bombs. The problem comes when you have unreasonably low standards needed to order to incur massive amounts of "collateral damage."

Counter-insurgency methods revolve around a very simple calculus: you are competing with a non-state actor for the favor of a civilian population. If the population tilts towards the insurgents, they will receive cover, recruits, supplies, and support. If the population tilts to the state actor (as in post-surge Iraq), the insurgents lose their mobility, lose their sancturaries, lose recruits, and even send recruits to join the state.

So when a drone attack kills ten children and one low-level terrorist, the net result may be the creation of six terrorists who are relatives of the children and a dozen more people now willing to harbor and help terrorists.

When a drone fires into a funeral killing dozens in order to possibly hit a high-level warlord, or when a drone fires at civilians rescuing those who were hit thirty minutes earlier by a drone, or when a drone fires into a city council meeting killing town elders because a Taliban agent is there, the net result is a Taliban gain at the cost of replacing high-level Taliban enforces with just-from-boot-camp neo-Taliban officers currently hiding in Pakistan.